Seminars

Seminars

• Colleen Cassady St.Clair, University of Alberta. TBA, behavioral ecology. Thurs April 15 4:00 PM OSN 102.

• Jeffrey Mosely, Montana State University. Livestock grazing and vegetation management to improve wildlife habitat. April 21, 3:00 PM, Mackay Sciences rm 215.

Outline

1. Goals for forest management2. Issues and conflicts3. How can goals be achieved?4. History of US management policy5. Example: Managing based on historic

variability (Blue River, OR)6. Healthy Forest initiative

Reading1. Hartley, M. 2002. Rationale and methods for

conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management 155:81-95.

2. Miller, C., and Urban, D. 2000. Modeling the effects of fire management alternatives on Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests. Ecological Applications 10:85-84.

3. Suggested: Lundquist, J., and Beatty, J. 2002. A method for characterizing and mimicking forest canopy gaps caused by different disturbances. Forest Science 48:582-594. (copy available to sign out from my office)

Goals of forest management

• What values do we manage for?

Goals of forest management

1. Timber production2. Wildlife habitat

1. Economically important species2. Endangered/threatened species

3. Biodiversity4. Esthetic and/or cultural values: “wilderness”5. Recreation6. Water quality and watershed maintenance7. Carbon sequestration

Issues and conflicts

• What factors might complicate management objectives?


1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates



e.g. differential impact of spruce budworm and bark beetles on stand dynamics in Blue Mts, OR. Budworm outbreaks tended to “reset stand” as logging

or windthrow wouldBeetle outbreaks had “within stand” consequences


1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates2. Competition, other plant species


1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates2. Competition, other plant species

• Example – exotic species.


1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates2. Competition, other plant species3. Microbial community


1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates2. Competition, other plant species3. Microbial community

• Example – loss of mycorhizzae from Oregon forests and inability to re-vegetate clear-cuts


1. Biotic factors: 1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates2. Competition, other plant species3. Microbial community4. Soil conditions


1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates2. Competition, other plant species3. Microbial community4. Soil conditions

• Sustainability of intensive loblolly pine plantation management Forest Ecol and Management 155:69-80. Clearcut and replanting of plantations; concern that resources will be depleted.



2. Competition, other plant species3. Microbial community4. Soil conditions5. Natural disasters – windstorms, fire.



2. Competition, other plant species3. Microbial community4. Soil conditions5. Natural disasters – windstorms, fire.

Examples : Salvage logging. Loss of timber, “resetting” succession.


1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates2. Competition, other plant species3. Microbial community4. Soil conditions5. Natural disasters – windstorms, fire.6. Cumulative effects


1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates2. Competition, other plant species3. Microbial community4. Soil conditions5. Natural disasters – windstorms, fire.6. Cumulative effectsExample: Weyerhaueser is secondary harvester onFMA in Northern Alberta; oil and gas exploration

removes more timber.


1. Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates2. Competition, other plant species3. Microbial community4. Soil conditions5. Natural disasters – windstorms, fire.6. Cumulative effects7. Overexploitation8. Fire management: burning, removal of biomass to

control fire risk?Examples: Ecol. App. 10:85-94, For. Ecol. Man. 105:21-35

Predicting management effects

1. Pacific northwest Douglas Fir and hemlock forest. Historic management, NW Forest Plan (old-growth conservation) and predicted effects of managing for natural variation.

History of forests

“Environmental Narrative”: Hessburg and Agee 2003. Forest Ecology and Management 178:23-59.

Fire frequency in inland NW from 1-5 centuries for severe fires, and 30 yrs for low severity fires. Elevational gradient: high severity in high elevations, low in low elevations.

Burning by Native Americans affected grasslands and dry grassy forest (P-pine)

1. fur trapping and trading, wildlife values2. Settlement and introduction of new

species3. Mining, creation of roads and trails4. Railroads: wood harvest to build ties5. Fragmentation of use and ownership: land

grants6. Introduction of livestock: cattle and sheep:

by 1860, 200,000 cattle in Eastern Washington. Impact on riparian zones and fish habitat by 1900.

1. Exotic plant and insect species : changes in land management, introductions with crop seeds etc (e.g. cheatgrass). Major problem: white pine blister rust – intro in 1910.

2. Industrial logging in early 1900’s – private land. Rapid harvest: 0.5 million m3 timber 1925-1946. Reduced to 20% of that in 1950.

3. Environmentalism and preservation4. Urban widerness interface issues5. Concern for other forest values6. Switch to ecosystem management approach

Natural Variation

1. Goals: to put forest dynamics into a landscape context (maybe allow ecosystem management goals)

2. Example: Blue River forest; Cissel et al 1999. Ecol. App. 1217-1231.

Background1. Early 20th century: USFS focused on forest protection in

PNW; much of harvesting occurred on private holdings.2. After WW2 – sustainable yield of forest products and

fire suppression• Used dispersed patch clearcutting

3. In 1980s concern about fragmentation; brief flirtation with aggregated clearcutting

4. 1990s – forest management plan after listing of Spotted Owl as endangered. Static reserves, corridors, standard prescriptions for matrix, protection of riparian zones, etc.

Background• New idea: use understanding of historic

disturbance to maintain dynamic nature of landscape.

“These approaches use information on historic and current landscape conditions, disturbance history, and social goals to set objectives for future landscape structures that provide desired plant and wildlife habitat

Study• Compare two harvest models:

1. “Interim Plan” based on NW Forest Plan• Forest matrix (for harvesting)• Scenic areas (reserved)• Riparian zones (reserved)• Special area reserves (reserved-conservation)

2. Landscape plan: based on natural variability (fire regime)– 3 landscape areas with different rotation time,

retention levels, and block size based on fire– Aquatic areas (reserved for water quality protection)– Special area reserves (reserved-conservation)

Study• Created spatial models to predict landscape

structure.• Models run for 100 years into future.• Landscape metrics calculated (Patch size, edge

density, interior habitat area)• Interim plan had smaller patches, more edge, less

interior habitat. • Landscape plan had mosaic of habitats

throughout area; interim had old growth along riparian corridors.

• Question: is this a better approach?

Healthy Forest Initiative• December 2003.• Goals: reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire• Components:

Healthy Forest Initiative– Reduce dense undergrowth that fuels catastrophic fires

through thinning and prescribed burns; – Improve the public involvement in the review process – Select projects on a collaborative basis involving local,

tribal, state, Federal and non-governmental entities– Focus projects on Federal lands that meet strict criteria for

risk of wildfire damage to communities, water supply systems and the environment

– Authorize the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, to protect, restore and enhance degraded forest ecosystems on private lands to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species

Healthy Forest Initiative• Encourage biomass energy production through

grants and assistance to local communities creating market incentives for removal of otherwise valueless forest material; and

• Develop an accelerated program on certain Federal lands to combat insect infestations.

Documents

Seminars